City firms should slash NQ salaries to £50,000, say recruiters

  • Print
  • Comments (47)

Readers' comments (47)

  • Heh!

    Perhaps the way to stop the exodus of staff from city firms at the end of their training contracts is to stop beasting them, rather than pay them less?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Of course, NQ salaries at top City firms have already fallen by approx 6-10% since 2007/2008, before taking into account inflation and despite miniscule uplift over the last two years. NQs at such firms took a hit when the £64-66k mark was reduced to circa £59k in 2009. And how does lowering salaries prevent the exodus to the regions/in-house?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Call me a cynic but it looks like legal recruitment firm Edwards Gibson have advised attendees to undertake a course of action that will only increase the migration of NQs to regional firms and in-house legal teams. Why would they want to do that?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So reducing salaries will stop an exodus? Surely this will lead to more moving in house as the key motivation for many to stay in PP for the money will be lost. I say raise the salaries if the issue is people deserting the city...however, it's not the real issue. The real issue is less work means less productivity which means less demand which means less cost. Don't make this issue into something else.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "Say recruiters." Say the guys who couldn't get into law or couldn't hack it while they were there. If anything, a good NQ with sufficient work is underpaid, not the other way around.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If I understand it right the suggestion is that in certain practice areas clients are deserting the City firms in favour of larger in-house teams and/ or cheaper regional practices - presumably the reason Edwards Gibson would give is that this is largely cost-driven. And their proposed solution is to pay NQs less?

    If my assumption of what Edwards Gibson are saying is correct then that presumably means that the element of a bill on a particular matter that relates to time spent by NQs will reduce by 17% or so to reflect the lower salaries paid (60k - 50k) - always assuming of course that Big Law will pass on the reduced cost of NQ salaries!

    Surely when all other costs remain the same that means the overall reduction in costs to a client on any given matter will be minimal under this proposal - and presumably not enough to make clients consider a revision of the flow of work away from Big Law in certain practice areas if we are to assume it's purely cost-driven (which it isn't anyway).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I love the fact that NQs think they can get jobs in the regions for this much. Oh I cant earn this in the City so I will move to the provinces. Get real folks - major regional firms at 5 PQE are only just (if you get a good one) paying this level!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Perhaps it's how the story has been reported, but I am struggling to see how reducing salaries will prevent a jobs exodus. I can see how a failure to reduce salaries might increase work being "northsourced/shored", but that's not quite the same as a "jobs exodus" as reported here.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • How about Partners take a cut in their salary/drawings and the trainees who are on a tenth of those salaries keep there's the same?? No, I didn't thing a recruiter (who relies on extortionate bonuses, approved by said partners) would suggest such a thing!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • No doubt the article is suggesting that the work is being farmed out to the regions and not the NQs themselves. Pay less, charge less and keep the matters.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page

Have your say

Mandatory Required Fields

Mandatory

Comments that are in breach or potential breach of our terms and conditions in particular clause 8, may not be published or, if published, may subsequently be taken down. In addition we may remove any comment where a complaint is made in respect of it. These actions are at our sole discretion.

  • Print
  • Comments (47)